Nobody seems to have noticed that the meeting between Bishop Fellay and Cardinal Levada was not just 'for September'. No, Bishop Fellay mentioned a specific date they had agreed on: 22nd September. We now hear that a meeting will occur on 14th September. Therefore, the date has changed. Why would it change?

A careful reading of Fellay's earlier remarks suggests that Rome gave the Society an offer to consider over the summer. Why think this? Because Fellay was careful to specify that he had receieved no "standing" offer. Why the adjective? If he had received no offer at all, he would have said so. The specifiction of the adjective suggests that he was given an unofficial offer.

Now the date's been moved up. Has there been an unofficial agreement that needs to be made official?

Monster-ance! That is really a piece of architecture. I understand this monstrance is a precious historic artwork, and this picture surely captures the peak historic moment it was meant for. What dignity there is in art that helps millions to worship Our Lord.

Someone said under another post that Sept 14th is not only the Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross but also the anniversary of Summorum Pontificum. Doesn't that make Sept 14th a good date? We need to fast and pray for Christian unity.

At first, Bishop Fellay merely said that he would meet Cardinal Levada "in September". However, I kept my eyes peeled. Finally, he was more specific. He said that they would meet "on 22nd September". That day, the Feast of St. Thos. of Villanova, has no especial significance.

Now we hear that the meeting has been moved to 14th September--moved forward--and that Bishop Fellay's two assistants will accompnay him. Fr. Schmidberger also reveals that the subject of discussion will be a canonical form for the S.S.P.X.

In the spring, Bishop Fellay, to quell speculation, said that he had received "no standing offer" from Rome; that is, no official offer had been tabled. But why the adjective? No one would think to add it had there been no offer at all. So, obviously, Rome had extended an unofficial offer, a 'suggestion' for a canonical form.

This Pope loves symbolic dates. U.E. was signed on the Feast of St. Pius V (although, unfortunately, on the new calendar); S.P. was signed on the seventh day of the seventh month in the year 2007; it came into force on Holy Cross Day;. and the excommunications were lifted during the Octave of Unity.

So it seems likely that some sort of an agreement has been reached regarding canonical form and that it will be signed. If the meeting was just to discuss the next step, it would not have been moved forward to the fourth anniversary of S.P.

Yes, I do hope that my hopes are not ahead of my brain here. But it is not wrong to hope for that which is just and good. So I agree with Jordanes on this. Let's pray for a solution. This Pope is 84 years old and we do not know who his successor will be. It's now or never.

Yes, what makes this particularly different is the fact that the information is given by an official source - we have absolutely nothing against rumors (how could we?), but if there is a line that separate them from actual news, this is it, as Jordanes notes.

Dear friends, I closed the other comment thread because debate on this issue is really unnecessary and immaterial in the coming months. I will reopen it, but, please, tone things down. Let us not discuss it here anymore.